User talk:Protobaltoslav

Baltoslavic entries
Baltoslavic isn't a language is it? If it's a family of languages, you can't lump all of those languages together, no more than you can have ==Germanic languages== or ==Romances languages== as headers. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ditto Slavic:. Every language gets its own section. SemperBlotto 08:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Origin" is also not a language. SemperBlotto 22:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Origin is a title. The origin of croatian usage of the suffix is derived from the language relationship to other languages. It is not a suffix indigenous to croatian. Please lets be correct. What do you suggest is a better amalgamation because the current one is misleading.
 * Serbo-Croatian perhaps. Despite any nationalistic hatred and whatnot, many contributors who are knowledgeable/fluent in the language(s) have agreed it is most logical to group the languages together as the one unit that they are and if any term does happen to be peculiar to one dialect/language the entry will/should say so. Ivan Štambuk is a native speaker of Serbo-Croatian. I'll ask him if to discuss this with you so you can work out the best thing to do. 50 Xylophone Players talk 23:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Every single language gets its own entry. What don't you understand about that SemperBlotto 22:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The section needs origin or etymology otherwise the resource is a waste as the language component is untraceable. Now that you understand the intention of the edit perhaps it can be amended to be useful.

The suffix means the same as -nik needs the same etymology entry
 * Etymology is a valid header, but not a valid language header. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It was approved in -nik What do you suggest. This is getting silly.

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contribution so far. Here are a few good links for newcomers:


 * How to edit a page is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.
 * Entry layout explained (ELE) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard, the easiest way to do this is to copy exactly an existing page for a similar word.
 * Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words Wiktionary is interested in including. There is also a list of things that Wiktionary is not for a higher level overview.
 * The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
 * We have discussion rooms in which you can ask any question about Wiktionary or its entries, a glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome! --Ivan Štambuk 23:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

-nik
I thought this was Slavic-only suffix, with no parallels in Baltic languages (Lithuanian, Latvian, Old Prussian). Is it used there too..? --Ivan Štambuk 23:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem resides when we try to do a territorial definition of Baltic and then consider the travel of the suffix through migration. From my knowledge that is an unresolved argument amongst scholars so we might as well state it as that and be more precise in the description. Does this suit?


 * Travel of the suffix thru migration? o_O
 * I'm now checking with some etymological dictionaries and there indeed exist parallels in Lithuaninan agentive suffix undefined: as well as Old Prussian undefined:, both of which are a clear match to Common Slavic *undefined:. --Ivan Štambuk 23:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be the travel of the suffix through migration then. Do you want to make the amendment with the info you found or me to do it?

And no I had not read 'how to edit a page.'


 * Please read carefully the links posted in the Welcome message above. It is imperative that all the information entered on Wiktionary follows these rules. It will take you some time to get used to it, but it's all very logical and carefully thought-out. Especially WT:ELE - this is the most important page of them all.


 * I'll amend the entry, just give me some time I'm still researching on it a bit.


 * As far as the migration of the suffix is concerned - this suffix can be easily etymologized in terms of native morphology already. It was not borrowed, and certainly it did not travel by means of migration (I'm not sure if you're talking of migration of people, or using the word migration in a figurative sense here). It was in fact inherited from Proto-Slavic down to modern-day Slavic languages, and comparison to Baltic languages shows that it also existed in the Proto-Balto-Slavic period. In fact, you can even derive the Proto-Slavic suffix from Lithuanian by means of regular sound changes. --Ivan Štambuk 00:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Great! I meant travel as in stem and suffix changes Protobaltoslavic origin was the most information I could find, For example, from -nik to -inykas or vis a vis as you suggested by sound. Determining probable origin through sounds changes is an interesting subject of an article (at least I would read it) and beyond my current abilities and ability to access resources judging by what you found Thanks.


 * I've made the changes. Any thoughts? Hopefully some day we'll get entries on the Baltic equivalents of this suffix so that we can link to it in the etymology section. --Ivan Štambuk

1. The meaning is used to denote someone in charge of something, this is implied in 'profession' but not a rich enough definition, don't you think.

2. This meaning is the same in (to my knowledge) all Slavic dialects (Macedonian, Croatian, Serbiian, Russian) is this a fair statement rather than serbo-croatian? That statement reaks of 1980s and linguistic apologetics. Which is fine but irrelevant.

3.We could include more comprehensive indexing for categories. I need to read how to do this. This is what I meant, so if I am looking I can click through and eventually (if that was my trace) end up with the Lithuanian or Prussian equivalent.

It is almost a policy decision.


 * Yeah you're right. Individual meanings of the suffix should be separated in their own definition lines, and examples could be provided for them. It will be done one day by some of our Serbo-Croatian contributors. I takes time to expand entries thoroughly you know. Also, entries for suffixes get a ====Derived terms==== section where all the words are listed that are derived using that suffix (as well as other suffixes derived from it).
 * Yes but, as it was pointed to you above by others, all languages get their own section. So Russian goes to ==Russian==, Macedonian to ==Macedonian== etc. See for example: Category:Russian suffixes. Serbo-Croatian is doubtless one language, but these days in at least 4 different standards (with more possibly coming, the with the secession of Republika Srpska and/or possibly Sandžak & Vojvodina on the horizon :) It is annoying how people often mix the concept of a language and a standard variety. In this aspect, SC is no different than other pluricentric languages such as English, German, Spanish, Portuguese etc.
 * Link to etymologically cognate words are provided only within the ===Etymology=== section. Usually the emphasis is placed on closely related languages; for modern Slavic languages these would be other modern Slavic languages, and then Balto-Slavic and only then Indo-European. See WT:ETY for some guidelines on etymologies. --Ivan Štambuk 00:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, check out some of our Babel templates you could place on your userpage. --Ivan Štambuk 01:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw the category changes and thank you. I know it takes time. I will read the instructions and perhaps be allowed back to help and add the other categories etc.